DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against
Grace Eleanor Jamieson, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Alexander (Sandy) Bass, OCT, Chair Mel Greif
Wes Vickers, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Eli Mogil,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Bev Hodsdon,
) Law Clerk
- and – )
GRACE ELEANOR JAMIESON ) Mandy Wojcik,
(CERTIFICATE #288081) ) Sack, Goldblatt, Mitchell LLP
) for Grace Eleanor Jamieson
) Marc Spector
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel ) ) Heard: October 30, 2012
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDERS
This matter came on before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on October 30, 2012 at the Ontario College of Teachers (“the College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing, dated May 4, 2011 was served on Grace Eleanor Jamieson, requesting her presence on May 25, 2011 to set a date for a hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for October 30, 2012.
Grace Eleanor Jamieson was in attendance.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against Grace Eleanor Jamieson in the Notice of Hearing, (Exhibit 1) dated May 4, 2011 are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Grace Eleanor Jamieson is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in section 30(2) of the Act and/or is incompetent as defined in section 30(3) of the Act, in that:
(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) she failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically section 264(1)(c) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(c) she displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment and/or a disregard for the welfare of her students of a nature or extent that demonstrates that the Member is either unfit to carry out her professional responsibilities or that the Member’s certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations.
At the hearing on October 30, 2012, Counsel for the College, sought to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct in paragraphs (a) and (b) in the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member breached Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5) and 1(15). The Committee agreed that these allegations should be withdrawn.
Counsel for the College advised the Committee that an agreement had been reached on the facts and introduced a Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
Grace Eleanor Jamieson (the “Member”) is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached to [Exhibit 2] and located at Tab “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information respecting the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) and was a teacher at two schools of the Board, namely Willowdale Middle School (“Willowdale”) and Zion Heights Junior High School (“Zion Heights”), both in Toronto, Ontario.
While teaching Mathematics, English, History/Geography at the Grade 7 level and Science at the Grade 6 and 7 levels at Willowdale during the 2004-2005 academic year, the Member’s teaching performance was assessed. A Summative Report dated April 14, 2005 rated the Member’s performance as ‘Unsatisfactory’ in the areas of Commitment to Pupils and Pupil Learning, Professional Knowledge and Teaching Practice and Ongoing Professional Learning. The deficiencies included the Member’s inability or failure to:
(a) respond consistently to the learning exceptionalities and special needs of her students;
(b) effectively diagnose the learning difficulties being experienced by her students in order to provide the appropriate mediation;
(c) establish an environment to maximize student learning;
(d) consistently promote student self-esteem by her failure to reinforce positive behaviours;
(e) use a variety of appropriate teaching techniques to engage her students and failed to take into account the various learning styles in order to employ the special education IEP and IPRC processes to promote student achievement;
(f) make effective links between daily lesson plans and long-range plans to successfully promote the development of higher order thinking skills;
(g) choose pertinent resources for the development of instruction to address students needs and to use a variety of appropriate assessment and evaluation techniques or to engage in meaningful dialogue with students to provide feedback during the teaching/learning process;
(h) reach out to parents and to diverse local communities to invite them to share their knowledge and skills to support effective classroom and school activities;
(i) seek input from colleagues, consultants and other appropriate support staff, and failed to keep a portfolio recording her learning experiences.
A second appraisal of the Member’s teaching performance was undertaken during the 2005-2006 academic year while she was teaching Grade 9 Geography, Grade 8 English and Grade 7 History/Geography and English (gifted), at Zion Heights. Again, the Member’s performance was deemed to be Unsatisfactory and those areas identified in the first appraisal were still of concern.
Attached to [Exhibit 2] and located at Tabs “B” and “C” respectively, are the Summative Reports dated April 14, 2005 and January 18, 2006, prepared by the Principals of Willowdale and Zion Heights, respectively, both of whom identified concerns with the Member’s ability to respond to her students’ special needs, her evaluation and assessment practice and techniques, and her failure to create an environment which maximized student learning.
Improvement Plans were drafted and attempts were made by school administrators to assist the Member to address those areas where improvement was deemed necessary.
Following her receipt of a second Unsatisfactory rating, the Member was placed on review and advised that a third assessment appraisal would take place. Meetings were held with the Member in September and November 2006 in preparation for a third teacher performance appraisal. Pre-observations meetings were held on February 27, 2007 and further observations were undertaken of the Member’s English and Geography classes on March 1 and 2, 2007. Post-observation meetings took place on March 23 and 30, 2007. However, the appraisal process was not completed.
The Member resigned from her employment with the Board effective June 29, 2007.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document, the Member admitted, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 8 above (the “uncontested Facts”).
The Member pled no contest to the allegation of incompetence in that she displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment that demonstrated that her Certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations, as defined in Section 30(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996.
By this document, the Member stated that:
(a) she understood fully the nature of the allegations against her;
(b) she understood that by signing this document, she was consenting to the evidence as set out in the uncontested facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understood that by pleading no contest to the allegations, she was waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;
(d) she understood that any agreement between her counsel and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(e) she understood and acknowledged that she was executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provided this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, .R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the College of Teachers Act, 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or finding in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
DECISION
On October 30, 2012, the Discipline Committee rendered the following oral decision with respect to finding:
Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, the submissions made by Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of incompetence. In particular, the Committee finds that Grace Eleanor Jamieson committed acts of incompetence as defined in subsection 30(3) of the Act.
In particular, the Committee finds the Member to be incompetent in that she displayed a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment that demonstrates that her Certificate should be made subject to terms, conditions or limitations, as defined in subsection 30(3) of the Act.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board “the Board”, in two different schools over a period of two (2) years. In each of these assignments, the Member was required to undergo Teacher Performance Appraisals. In both cases, albeit in different subject areas, the Member was given an “Unsatisfactory” ranking. In these two reviews, the Member was given, according to the documents contained within Exhibit 2 at Tabs “B” and “C”, substantive opportunity for personal remediation and accruing appropriate teaching competence. The reviews documented a significant deficiency in the Member’s ability to engage special education (gifted) students in a manner appropriate to their education plans. The Member seems not to be able to utilize any of the opportunities offered to her by the Board and her colleagues for addressing such deficiency. The Member failed to appropriately diagnose student learning difficulties that were to be found in her class. There was a general environment in the Member’s class that failed to maximize student learning. There was an absence of long range planning for the encouragement of higher ordered thinking. The Member did not assess pertinent resources that were designed to address student needs. As well, there was a failure of effective assessment and evaluation techniques. When advised by her administration as part of the Teacher Performance Appraisal, the Member failed to maintain a portfolio in which she was to record her learning experiences.
JOINT SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Discipline Committee in this matter would be the imposition of terms, conditions and/or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration requiring the Member to complete a course in sensitivity training.
At the time of this hearing, the Member had completed two further Master Degree courses in ‘Reading Disabilities’ and ‘Improving Reading Comprehension’. Both courses were acceptable to the Registrar. Had the Member not completed these courses, Counsel for the College and Counsel for the Member indicated that the Joint Submission on Penalty would have included a term, condition or limitation on the Member’s certificate requiring her to do so.
PENALTY
The Committee makes the following order as to penalty:
(a) The Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms and conditions and limitations is to be recorded on the Register of the College until such time as they are fulfilled:
(i) attend, at her own expense, a course in sensitivity and awareness training with a special focus on effectively interacting with special needs students, particularly those who are gifted, and one that has been pre-approved by the Registrar;
(ii) within thirty (30) days of her completion of the course referred to in paragraph (i) above, the Member shall provide evidence to the Registrar in writing, of her successful completion of same;
(iii) the Member shall advise the Registrar within thirty (30) days following her return to any teaching duties of the date of such return, the name of her employer, and the nature of said employment;
(iv) upon the commencement of her employment, the Member shall take all reasonable steps to cause her employer to conduct a performance appraisal following her first complete year of teaching duties and no later than eighteen (18) months following the commencement of such teaching duties, and the Member shall provide a copy of the report of such performance appraisal to the Registrar within thirty (30) days of its completion, or her receipt of same, whichever is the later. If the Member’s employer is unable or unwilling to perform the performance appraisal, the Member shall immediately notify the Registrar.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
In spite of the fact that the Member has many academic competencies, it is obvious that there is a gap in her ability to deliver on the promise of her training. Consequently, the Committee has determined that a directed sensitivity course would be highly appropriate. A course designed specifically for the Member’s employment needs and teaching deficiencies is required. Ideally, this course would assist the Member in reflecting on and correcting the multiple difficulties in her effective teaching.
The Member has admitted to the fact that she needs redress for her self-agreed failings in properly harnessing her learned skills to the needs and demands of her classroom situation.
The Decision goes a great length to remediate the Member and serve as a specific deterrent in her particular case. It is assumed that a sensitivity course successfully taken and respected for what it is trying to achieve will help the Member to return to the classroom as an effective practitioner of her craft.
The Penalty serves the public interest in that it, even though unpublished, will clearly articulate the expectations of the Ontario College of Teachers in the maintenance of teacher competence.
Date: October 30, 2012
Alexander (Sandy) Bass, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Mel Greif
Member, Discipline Panel
Wes Vickers, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel